[size=18pt]Abacha's achievements praised by Chief Tom Ikimi[/size]

In a recent interview to mark his 60th birthday anniversary, Nigeria’s former Foreign Affairs Minister, Chief Tom Ikimi paid glowing tribute to the memory of the late military Head of State, General Sani Abacha. Rarely do former public office holders praise the memory of departed leaders in order to avoid offending those in power. And that is why Tom Ikimi should be commended for his sincerity and courage.

Chief Ikimi, who was speaking recently to the Punch newspaper, said Abacha meant well for Nigeria, despite the attempts by his opponents to diminish his achievements by playing up his weakness, which are normal with every ordinary human being. According to Ikimi, the former Obasanjo administration had more resources and longer stay in power but it didn’t beat the record of Abacha’s achievements.

He particularly recalled the successful re-investment of petroleum subsidy withdrawal proceeds to make life better for Nigerians. The former Foreign Affairs Minister said the late Abacha’s Petroleum Trust Fund, which was selfishly abolished by Obasanjo, started off very successfully, bringing remarkable improvements in the conditions of public schools, hospitals, roads, water supply and other critical areas of social services. He regretted the culture of vilifying the memory of past leaders and discrediting their achievements.

In fact, we don’t need a reminder from Tom Ikimi to acknowledge Abacha’s impressive legacy within just the five years he was destined to rule. During the eight years of the former Obasanjo administration, Nigeria’s foreign reserve reached an all-time high, hitting 64 billion dollars. Ironically, such huge oil revenues didn’t produce any significant impact on Nigerians. Instead of building houses of his own, Obasanjo was selling away those built by administrations before him, thereby pushing up rents to unbelievable levels in Abuja. The late Abacha built the Gwarimpa Housing Estate within just five years he was in office. It is the biggest single housing project in Africa, according to property experts.

Governance is not only about the resources available to the government but also about the commitment and sincerity of leaders to apply public resources to improve the quality of lives of the citizens. It is on record that the former Obasanjo administration spent 16 billion dollars to improve power generation but Nigeria is still struggling between 2,500 to 3000 megawatts. South Africa generates 45,000 megawatts of electricity, while the self-acclaimed giant of Africa is till unable to meet the minimum requirement even in the nation’s Federal Capital Territory of Abuja.

The level of stealing has risen dramatically while the dividends of the so-called democracy can only be found in the pockets of the “elected” leaders. As Professor Patrick Utomi, the founder of the Lagos Business School, perfectly observed, what we have in Nigeria today is not democracy but “a government of politicians for politicians and by politicians.” Democracy is supposed to be a vehicle to provide honest and selfless services but what we have today are leaders who are attracted to elective offices for private gain. According to American religious philosopher, Ambrose Bierce, “politics is the conduct of public affairs for private gain.” The greed of our politicians makes this reality ever louder day after day.

Nigerians always look back with nostalgia to the record of Abacha. Apart from his patriotism by resisting dictation by foreign powers, Abacha brought credibility to Nigeria in Liberia because his administration allowed Liberians to choose whoever they wanted; he had no candidate in the election in Liberia. He returned stability to Liberia through a foreign policy of neutrality. The passage of time is the best judge. Confronted by the huge failures of the Obasanjo administration, many Nigerians are becoming more forgiving of Abacha’s imperfections and focusing more on his positive legacies, which are yet to be rivaled by the records of his opponents.

“Nigeria will be great again” was the guiding philosophy of the Obasanjo administration when he staged a come-back in 1999 (this time as a civilian President). However, eight years after leaving office, Nigerians were beginning to discover the rot caused by his administration. The corruption, greed and disregard for due process, which characterized privatization, the so-called power projects and other scandals, ultimately removed the mask from the face of Obasanjo’s administration. His administration was the most self-righteous but its hypocrisy came falling apart like skeletons from the cupboard. Whether Tom Ikimi said it or not, Nigerians can no longer be deceived by the propaganda that Abacha was the worst evil to befall Nigeria.

Danladi wrote in from Yahaya Road, Kaduna,

email:gsuliemandanladi@gmail.com

http://blueprintng.com/2012/05/abacha-in-the-eyes-of-ikimi/

Please leave Abacha alone!

Written by Ahmed Yusuf Hadejia Saturday, 06 August 2011 05:00

In his recent widely published adulatory article, entitled “Between Distinction and Disaster,” the Media Adviser to Governor Sule Lamido of Jigawa State, Mr. Adagbo Onoja went beyond his boundary by making some snide remarks against the memory of the late military ruler, General Sani Abacha.

He argued to the effect that there was nothing remarkable to remember about General Abacha except repression. Although it was a passing comment, which digressed from the adulatory objective of his article, Mr. Onoja should have demonstrated some charity in his assessment of General Abacha. Nobody is disputing the right of Lamido’s media adviser to glorify his boss and showcase his achievements. The attack on Abacha is, however, absolutely uncalled for. While assessing the achievements of Lamido vis-à-vis other administrations (past and present), Mr. Onoja should not take the intelligence of his readers for granted. His display of selective memory about Abacha’s record is incredible.

Fair-minded Nigerians like this writer cannot let Lamido’s media adviser to re-write and distort history for his tendentious end. Despite Abacha’s alleged repression by Onoja, the late military ruler had no problem with the ordinary Nigerians. Onoja is at liberty to praise his boss to high heavens. He doesn’t, however, have the right to vilify other leaders. As the Greek Philosopher, Socrates noted, “You don’t achieve greatness by diminishing others.” It would have been unnecessary to join issues with Onoja if he had limited his panegyric to the perceived achievements of his boss.

If, however, a critic exceeds his boundary to insult others while paying tribute to his boss, then he should expect a response in equal measure. Do the ordinary Nigerians need Onoja’s intervention to fairly assess the late General Abacha? When history is written with a mind of prejudice, as Onoja did, objectivity will automatically fly through the window. In fact, only a beetle-eyed critic could pretend that repression was the only outstanding feature of the Abacha administration. Adagbo Onoja was in Jigawa State when a teenager was railroaded before a magistrate court because he criticized the governor of the state on Facebook. Is this not repression, especially in a democracy where no powerful man is a sacred cow? One has a duty therefore, to set the record straight and nail Onoja’s distortions to the counter. General Abacha’s foreign reserve level was less than 10billion dollars but he was still able to achieve results. The impact of the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF), which was created by General Abacha to manage the proceeds of subsidy withdrawal for the larger benefit of Nigerians, is still being felt. The success or failure of any administration does not depend on the length of tenure or level of resources. If that is the case, Nigeria would have been a paradise under the former Obasanjo administration. His government had a foreign reserve level of 63billion dollars, the highest ever achieved by any administration. Yet national infrastructure was (and still is) in poor shape 12 years since the current democratic order came into being.

Obasanjo’s poverty alleviation programme was in reality aggravating it; it only helped to enrich few bureaucrats at the expense of the intended beneficiaries. Power generation has been declining ever since Obasanjo left office, despite his unfulfilled promise to provide 10,000 megawatts of electricity by 2007. The conditions of federal roads, public hospitals, schools and other sectors of social service took a direct hit from the low quality of poor governance. Security had deteriorated beyond imagination.

In contrast, the late General Abacha did better with lesser resources. The PTF intervention had for the first time convinced Nigerians about the advantages of petroleum subsidy withdrawal. If Nigerians can see visible impact of government investment in improving their living standards, they can easily distinguish success from failure. Under Abacha, Nigerians had access to safe and affordable drugs in public hospitals, thanks to the PTF intervention. In fact, we still have equipment in public schools and hospital bearing PTF inscriptions.

Who can also deny that the security situation was better during the Abacha administration? Was Abuja not one of the safest cities under Abacha? On the other hand, were Nigerians under Obasanjo not living on their nerves, constantly looking over their shoulders as they walked or stepped out of their homes and work places? We were virtually captives of fear. And that is the sorry legacy the Obasanjo administration foisted on his successors who themselves were overwhelmed by the burden. General Abacha had his weaknesses like any other ordinary human being. We should not, however, let perceived weakness overshadow his more significant contributions to Nigeria.

In fact, it is important to remind Adagbo Onoja of the fact that the naira achieved more favourable exchange rate during Abacha than his critics can readily admit. Inflation was under control. Until his death, General Abacha maintained fuel price per litre at N25 while Obasanjo raised it to N75. Although Obasanjo accumulated more proceeds from petroleum subsidy withdrawal, it didn’t significantly impact on Nigerians as Abacha’s PTF did. Abacha resisted foreign dictation and avoided their strangulating debts. Nobody granted him a debt relief of $18b, yet his achievements remain unrivalled and incontestable.

We should always demonstrate the courage and humility to admit the virtues in others rather than let our prejudice to run away with us. Honest ignorance is pardonable but outright and deliberate indifference to genuine achievements is not. It is impossible to erase the record of good performance. Shouldn’t the National Hospital and Gwarinpa housing projects open the eyes of Onoja and other critics to the reality of General Abacha’s positive legacies? Nobody should question the right of a media adviser to a governor to praise his boss for his own security of office. In doing that, however, a media adviser should not take the liberty to attack the record of other leaders uncharitably.

Hadejia wrote from Kano State University of Science and Technology, Wudil, Kano State. ahmedyusuf2000@yahoo.com

http://weeklytrust.com.ng/?option=com_content&view=article&id=6771:please-leave-abacha-alone&catid=1:comments&Itemid=109

YOU ARE A person TRYING TO SPREAD USELESS GAY DADS UNKNOWN ACHIEVEMENTS.

[size=18pt]1st January 1994 - African Business
Can General Abacha put the economy back on course?[/size]


In an exclusive interview with Dr Kalu Idika Kalu, Nigeria's new Finance Minister, AB's PINI JASON in Lagos seeks the distinguished economic planner's views on Nigeria's economic direction now that General Sani Abacha has taken over the helm.

When General Sani Abacha shoved the Interim National Government aside in an almost imperceptible coup on 17 November, Nigeria and the international community were stunned into disbelief. But, surprisingly soon afterwards, Abacha began to garner public support at a speed that equally astonished observers.

He had hardly settled down when Nigeria's rather idle traditional rulers, a stream of diplomats from Asia, Africa and the Far East, and the plainly opportunistic influence pedlars began to troop in with solidarity messages.

This rather unexpected turn of events in a country that has confessed to a weariness with military rule cannot be attributed to the legendary complexity and the contradictions of Nigerian politics. The secret seems to lie in the fact that General Abacha lost very little time in striking the right keys when he made some of his appointments.

Civilian appointments

The first move which inoculated the restive Nigerian social critics into a let's-watch-and-see mood was the appointment into the Provisional Ruling Council (PRC) of civilians whose credentials elicited excited debates as to what Abacha had up his sleeve.

These civilians include Dr Olu Onagoruwa, a constitutional lawyer, pro-democracy activist and Secretary of the Movement for National Reformation who was appointed Attorney General and Minister of Justice; Alhaji Baba Gana Kingibe, Chief Abiola's running mate in the annulled 12 June election, who bagged the post of Foreign Affairs Minister; and Chief Alex Ibru, publisher of The Guardian of Lagos, who was made the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Determination

By the time the Executive Council (Council of Ministers) was constituted, Nigerians had begun to speculate that perhaps Abacha is determined to make a difference on the economic front, an achievement which completely eluded the last military administration.

The appointment that elicited the greatest optimism was that of Dr Kalu Idika Kalu, a renowned former World Bank economist, as the Minister of Finance. Kalu's appointment was immediately seen as a recognition that the past economic policies were faulty.

Dr Kalu was Babangida's Finance Minister for five months. His tenure was marked by the controversial debate over what economic policy to adopt and over how to approach the structural adjustment that was being prescribed by the IMF and the World Bank.

Dr Kalu was of an economic viewpoint which was at variance with the views expressed by another group, led by Professor Tunji Aboyade, the former Chairman of Babangida's Presidential Advisory Council (PAC).

The so-called IMF debate became a contest between two schools of economic thought. But several observers contend that Babangida was swayed by the economic prescription which pandered more to popular political buzz words than to economic common sense. And so the word devaluation acquired a negative political resonance, and the phrase IMF conditionalities became an outright pejorative, connoting "Western imperialist domination".

In an interview with the Daily Times of Nigeria, Babangida confessed that he was torn between opposing economic theories and "wondered why the economy had not collapsed".

Of course, since that confession, Nigeria's economy has gone from bad to worse, and its deterioration has been compounded by political instability. ln an exclusive interview with AB, Dr Kalu, rather restrained in assigning blame, spoke about what had gone wrong. "There are too many uniformed experts talking economics," he commented. "The problem can be traced to the mismanagement of structure and policies."

Kalu told AB he was of the view that all the noise about devaluation, foreign-exchange rates and IMF conditionalities was misplaced. "What is IMF loan? What is devaluation?" he queried. "The loan was a facility to fund your programme. Devaluation is simply a way to adjust an exchange rate, and the so-called conditionalities were measures we needed to adopt to make the chosen policy work," he explained.

The mistake of 1986, when Babangida chose to introduce the Second-tier Foreign Exchange Market (SFEM), Kalu recalled, was that he chose a method of exchange-rate adjustment meant for the advanced countries whose entire economic system moves, whereas in the developing countries, there are supply constraints which cannot adapt to instantaneous adjustment.

Kalu told AB that what Nigeria needed then instead was "a conscious adjustment over time. Don't allow your price to rise above world prices through an overvalued rate of exchange!"

Law of supply and demand

And, having chosen the wrong policy, as it were, Nigeria compounded her problem, according to Kalu, "by constraining ourselves by saying that we didn't need the IMF loan. By so doing, we rejected the funding we needed to cushion the pressure of the chosen policy". This, he emphasised, led to a total disregard for the law of supply and demand and invariably also created an incentive for massive corruption in the system and arbitrage in the banks. "Investment decisions", he stressed, "cannot ignore these problems."

Too many economic "experts" placed undue emphasis on the rate of exchange of the naira and on the role of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). But the country's new Finance Minister is not impressed. "The issue is not at what rate the naira exchanges. The economy is going down the hill," he observed. "The rate of exchange is not important. You have to talk of the totality of the economy - changes in taste, innovations in technology, the level of employment, infrastructure etc. All these factors, of course, affect the rate of exchange. Having the CBN to mop up liquidity without knowing whether it is creating wealth in the economy is not the solution."

Each nation is different

Each nation, the Minister noted, has to have its own strategy. The contexts in which the central banks of other nations manage their currencies are different, he further explained. "In the developing countries, there is nothing like equilibrium. The issue of developing countries is that of savings, investment, employment, growth of the economy, use of human and material resources - not pure financial or monetary aggregates," he observed. The appointment of Dr Kalu, who is reputed to have had the responsibility, while at the World Bank, for the restructuring of the South Korean economy, signifies a determination not only to lay a foundation for democracy, but also to rejuvenate confidence in the Nigerian economy. If this assumption is true, then the next question is, which is the way forward?

The way forward, Dr Kalu told AB, is to free the determination of the exchange rate and to establish a free market for the sale and purchase of foreign exchange. The exchange rate may initially be at a very unfavourable level, but "it will eventually stabilise," Dr Kalu maintains.

The basis of a free exchange market, in Kalu's view, "is to allow funds to flow freely. And because there will no longer be constraints, this will lead to higher savings and investments. The right policy is the one aimed at mobilising resources, savings, investments etc."

Dr Kalu indicated that he is to manage the exchange rate through constant adjustments. In a less-constrained exchange-rate determination, investors will still find areas in the economy that make sense to them. The second measure is that the entire Nigerian environment must be addressed by the government.

"The government has to tackle corruption, the allocation of resources, the whole question of ethnicism in purely economic decisions - all these factors affect the growth of the economy," he declared. In this direction, the government already appears inclined to tackle the problems. It has made declarations about a war against corruption, although its focus is not yet properly sharpened. AB also learnt that at its first Executive Council meeting in December, the government set up an ad-hoc committee on foreign-exchange management.

The Ministry of Information - headed by Professor Jerry Gana, the former Chairman of Social Mobilisation (Mamser) - is planning a campaign against indiscipline. Indiscipline is a word that came in for frequent use during the military administration of Babangida's predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari.

The government, the Minister indicated, is also thinking of relative price maintenance. To this end, large fluctuations would be avoided through the mechanism of frequent recalculations and adjustments.

All these ideas, however, hinge on whether Dr Kalu will be allowed the scope to put his ideas into practice and to take full responsibility for them, without the distractions of the "uniformed experts" in government, the universities, banks and the business sector.

Another thing to hope for is that Nigerians, especially commentators, will rid their minds of the extreme suspicion of IMF/World Bank motives which took root during Babangida's era of misguided economic policies. According to Dr Kalu, "every country that has restructured its economy has had significant input from the IMF and the World Bank".

Another issue that may keep the government and its economic planners constantly looking over their shoulders is the threat of sanctions by the US and the European Community, as a reprisal for Nigeria's return to full-blown military dictatorship.

The return of the military may lead the Paris and London Clubs to adopt belligerent postures during debt-rescheduling negotiations. The indication of a possible tough stance by the IMF and the World Bank became more apparent in December, when IMF officials intimated that Nigeria is not likely to enjoy any debt relief before 1997.

The IMF has indicated that for Nigeria to enjoy any debt relief, it must consistently implement its programme of reforms for at least three years. Nigeria has fallen into arrears on interest payments and paid about $1bn less than it was expected to pay in 1993.

IMF talks will resume

The IMF team is expected in Nigeria in January to hold consultations with the Nigerian government. Since 1990, when Nigeria's Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) was derailed, Nigeria has been holding talks with the IMF without reaching any agreement.

Echoing Dr Kalu's view, some IMF officials have also pointed out that the only way to move Nigeria's economy forward is for the government to institute a fiscal-stability regime, comprising a tight fiscal policy, control of inflation, and transparency and accountability in expenditure.

It must also maintain comprehensiveness on the revenue side.

African Business

NIGERIA'S NEW FEDERAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

DECEMBER 1993

Gen Sani Abacha Head of State and Minister of Defence (Chairman)

Lt-Gen D. O. Diya Chief of General Staff (Vice-Chairman)

Lt-Gen J. T. Useni Minister of the Federal Capital Territory

Dr Iyorchia Ayu Minister of Education

Alhaji Bamanga Tukur Minister of Industries

Alhaji Lateef Jalcande Minister of Works & Housing

Dr Kalu Idika Kalu Minister of Finance

Mr Don Etiebet Minister of Petroleum Resources

Alhaji Bashir Dalhatu Minister of Power & Steel

Dr Sashi Tafida Minister of Health & Human Resources

Alhaji Babagana Kingibe Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr Alex Ibru Minister of Internal Affairs

Alhaji Abubakar Rimi Minister of Communications

Dr Samuel Ogbemudia Minister of Labour & Productivity

Alhaji Adamu Ciroma Minister of Agriculture

Professor Jerry Gana Minister of Information

Dr Olu Onagoruwa Minister of Justice and Attorney General

Chief Melford Okilo Minister of Commerce & Tourism

Chief Ebenezer Babatope Minister of Transport & Aviation

Alhaji Isa Mohammad Minister of Water Resources

Dr Lazarus Unagu Minister of Science & Technology

Mr Solomon Law Minister of Police Affairs

Ambassador Mohammed Anka Minister of Local Government Affairs

Chief S. B. Daniya Minister of National Planning

Mrs Mobolaji Osomo Minister of the Establishment

Alhaji Umasu Baba Minister of State for Petroleum Resources

Mr Silas Ilo Minister of State for Health

Mrs Ada Adogu Minister of State for Agriculture

Alhaji A. B. Yahaya Minister of State for Transport & Aviation

Elder Wole Oyelese Minister of State for Power & Steel

Alhaji Wada Ilas Minister of State for Education

Chief Anthony A. Ani Minister of State for Foreign Affairs

Alhaji Aminu Sale Secretary to the Government of the Federation of Nigeria

[size=18pt]Gen. Diya Oladipo knew and supported coup plan against Abacha[/size]

Gen. Diya was crossed examined at the Human Rights Violation Commission (HRVIC) on the coup plan 1997 to overthrow Gen. Sanni Abacha, He bluntly denied the fact that he was part of the plan but he admitted he knew about the plan. He further explained that he was afraid of being killed by the Coup Master Planner if he revealed the plan.

He denied pleading with Gen. Sanni Abacha but was shocked to see the video where he truly knelt down before Gen. Sanni Abacha as tendered by the Lawyer.

Gen. Diya Oladipo then was appointed as Chief of Defense Staff. He was appointed Chief of General Staff in 1993 and Vice Chairman of the Provisional Ruling Council in 1994. In 1997 Diya and dissident soldiers in the military allegedly planned to overthrow the regime of Sani Abacha. The alleged coup was uncovered by forces loyal to Abacha, and Diya and his cohorts were jailed. Diya was tried in a military tribunal, and was given the death penalty.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKKnx2fCKzw

Abacha looted and didn't hide that fact but every other leader after Abacha including the so-called politicians are worse rogues

ddeola: Abacha looted and didn't hide that fact but every other leader after Abacha including the so-called politicians are worse rogues

INCORRECT,HE IS THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIAN NIGERIA EVER HAD.DO REMEMBER THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SENT HIS BOSS OBJ IN JAIL FOR TRYING TO GIVE HIS PEOPLE DEMOCRACY.

Present your evidence that Abacha looted it is not enough just to say he looted, without giving the evidence.

GenBuhari: Present your evidence that Abacha looted it is not enough just to say he looted, without giving the evidence.

YOUR JUST IGNORANT,AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DESERVE TO DIE.

you have no case to present?

People seem to be okay with vilifying Abacha. Honestly if the guy was so horrible then why is Nigeria still horrible after all these "better leaders"

Nigeria is not the same as it was under Abacha, things are a lot worst today

Tunmi: People seem to be okay with vilifying Abacha. Honestly if the guy was so horrible then why is Nigeria still horrible after all these "better leaders"

[size=18pt]Crisis: Abachas sell off family house[/size]
Aliyu Askira

A crisis brewing quietly within the famous Abacha family has forced the seven surviving children of the father of former head of state Gen. Sani Abacha to put up their family compound in Kano for sale.

Gen. Abacha’s father, who migrated from Maiduguri in the present Borno state to Kano very early in his life to trade in kolanuts, had settled in the Fagge quarters, where he had all his children.

He was, according to sources, a very successful merchant before he died, leaving behind 80 children and one wife.

The wife and Sani Abacha have since died as well.

The seven surviving children – six females and one male – had vowed not to sell their family’s only compound but as things became worse and help was not forthcoming from the children of the former Head of State, they decided to approach a court for settlement.

Hajiya Hauwa Abacha, one of the late Abacha Senior’s daughters, told Blueprint that the crisis in the family has gotten worse and the only option left is for them to sell the house and share the proceeds.

The house is now occupied on rent by Vitafoam and other companies.

On why she is not living comfortably despite the billions of naira reportedly left behind by their late brother, General Sani Abacha, she said, “Well, that is your assessment. To me I am okay, and if Mohammed wants he can buy their grandfather’s house. All I know is that it has been slated for sale.”

Some of the Abachas told our correspondent in confidence that since Mohammed, Gen. Abacha’s eldest surviving son, is still interested in being the governor of Kano state, they expect him to buy the one-storey building and convert it to his campaign office.

A close family source averred: “If one is to believe the story of the billions of naira and chains of houses the late head of state was alleged to have left behind, then the truth is that his half brothers did not benefit from his wealth as they are so poor that they had to put up their father’s house for sale in order to survive.”

http://blueprintng.com/2013/04/crisis-abachas-sell-off-family-house/

GenBuhari: [size=18pt]Crisis: Abachas sell off family house[/size]
Aliyu Askira

A crisis brewing quietly within the famous Abacha family has forced the seven surviving children of the father of former head of state Gen. Sani Abacha to put up their family compound in Kano for sale.

Gen. Abacha’s father, who migrated from Maiduguri in the present Borno state to Kano very early in his life to trade in kolanuts, had settled in the Fagge quarters, where he had all his children.

He was, according to sources, a very successful merchant before he died, leaving behind 80 children and one wife.

The wife and Sani Abacha have since died as well.

The seven surviving children – six females and one male – had vowed not to sell their family’s only compound but as things became worse and help was not forthcoming from the children of the former Head of State, they decided to approach a court for settlement.

Hajiya Hauwa Abacha, one of the late Abacha Senior’s daughters, told Blueprint that the crisis in the family has gotten worse and the only option left is for them to sell the house and share the proceeds.

The house is now occupied on rent by Vitafoam and other companies.

On why she is not living comfortably despite the billions of naira reportedly left behind by their late brother, General Sani Abacha, she said, “Well, that is your assessment. To me I am okay, and if Mohammed wants he can buy their grandfather’s house. All I know is that it has been slated for sale.”

Some of the Abachas told our correspondent in confidence that since Mohammed, Gen. Abacha’s eldest surviving son, is still interested in being the governor of Kano state, they expect him to buy the one-storey building and convert it to his campaign office.

A close family source averred: “If one is to believe the story of the billions of naira and chains of houses the late head of state was alleged to have left behind, then the truth is that his half brothers did not benefit from his wealth as they are so poor that they had to put up their father’s house for sale in order to survive.”

http://blueprintng.com/2013/04/crisis-abachas-sell-off-family-house/

YEAH, TO BUY AND BUILD A BLOODY NEW BIG ONE.

GenBuhari: [size=18pt]Crisis: Abachas sell off family house[/size]
Aliyu Askira

A crisis brewing quietly within the famous Abacha family has forced the seven surviving children of the father of former head of state Gen. Sani Abacha to put up their family compound in Kano for sale.

Gen. Abacha’s father, who migrated from Maiduguri in the present Borno state to Kano very early in his life to trade in kolanuts, had settled in the Fagge quarters, where he had all his children.

He was, according to sources, a very successful merchant before he died, leaving behind 80 children and one wife.

The wife and Sani Abacha have since died as well.

The seven surviving children – six females and one male – had vowed not to sell their family’s only compound but as things became worse and help was not forthcoming from the children of the former Head of State, they decided to approach a court for settlement.

Hajiya Hauwa Abacha, one of the late Abacha Senior’s daughters, told Blueprint that the crisis in the family has gotten worse and the only option left is for them to sell the house and share the proceeds.

The house is now occupied on rent by Vitafoam and other companies.

On why she is not living comfortably despite the billions of naira reportedly left behind by their late brother, General Sani Abacha, she said, “Well, that is your assessment. To me I am okay, and if Mohammed wants he can buy their grandfather’s house. All I know is that it has been slated for sale.”

Some of the Abachas told our correspondent in confidence that since Mohammed, Gen. Abacha’s eldest surviving son, is still interested in being the governor of Kano state, they expect him to buy the one-storey building and convert it to his campaign office.

A close family source averred: “If one is to believe the story of the billions of naira and chains of houses the late head of state was alleged to have left behind, then the truth is that his half brothers did not benefit from his wealth as they are so poor that they had to put up their father’s house for sale in order to survive.”

http://blueprintng.com/2013/04/crisis-abachas-sell-off-family-house/

“If one is to believe the story of the billions of naira and chains of houses the late head of state was alleged to have left behind, then the truth is that his half brothers did not benefit from his wealth as they are so poor that they had to put up their father’s house for sale in order to survive.”

DISGRACEFUL,IT SHOWS HOW HEARTLESS OF A MAN THIS BASTARDD WAS,DID NOT EVEN GIVE A DAMN ABOUT HIS OWN FAMILY.
AND THIS IS THE PERSON YOU CALL A GREAT AND UNCORRUPT GENERAL,AFTER ALL THE MONEY HE STOLE HE COULDN'T BOTHER TO SORT OUT HIS BROTHER,ITS NOT CALLED UNCORRUPTION ITS CALLED FOOLISHNESS.

GenBuhari:

YOUR ARROGANT, IGNORANT DUMBASS CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO COMMENT.

[size=18pt]Another reputable ex-minister praises Abacha[/size]
National Hospital should be handed over to Abacha’s wife–Madubuike, ex-health minister
Our Reporter February 23, 2013 11 Comments »


By IHEANACHO NWOSU, Abuja

Former Minister of Education and later Health, Dr Ihechukwu Madubuike, is not mincing words about how bad things are in the country at present. He is particularly pained that little is being done to address the glaring case of neglect of the South East.

He predicted the consequences of running a country based on injustice and inequity, just as he defended himself on his activities while in government.

Southern leaders, including you, held a meeting in Enugu. What was the goal of the gathering?

It was about the Southern Nigerian Peoples Assembly, a collection of leaders from the Southern part of the country, whose aim is to strengthen the unity of the country by strengthening the unity of the Southern zones. We want to address the imbalance of the nation, so as to ensure equity, justice and fairplay to all the parts of the country. That was the major reason we met.

Several of gatherings like this held in the past, but turned out to be a self-serving initiatives….

(Cuts in) Well, the South has been meeting but it has not always been driven by the kind of motives that we see at play this time. The other meetings were purely political. But these meetings that we are holding now are not being driven by any political party, as such. These are individuals who are well to do, who have served the nation. Some are still serving the nation. They are people who have seen it all and have come to the inescapable conclusion that unless all in the South come together, we shall continue to suffer some things that are avoidable.

Why were some leaders from the South West, especially those who are aligned to the Bola Tinubu camp missing in the meeting? Doesn’t that put a hole to your claim that it was a strategy meeting by the Southern leaders to unify the zone?

It is not all about political game, even though in a every meeting there is a political dimension. There are people who are also working with other groups in order to achieve possibly, the same aim. Everybody in the South knows about the disparity between the South and the North. The Tinubus themselves know this. The merging of various parties, for instance, has, as its aim, to reduce the disparity in the composition of the country in the allocation of resources, positions, etc. That is part of their own meeting. In any case, that they didn’t come on board now does not mean that they may not come on board in the future.

How do you exonerate your group from the allegation or insinuation that it is merely being used by the presidency to generate support for 2015?

As you said, it is a perception. Perceptions are not always based on facts. People have the right to perceive anything, but we know what we are doing. I didn’t see any Jonathan man at Enugu; no Jonathan man talked to us. People of like minds are only feeling that something has to be done to address some problems. For instance, the Tinubu group is equally interested in national dialogue, in discussing how we can live as a people together without one part of the country constantly dictating how the country should be ruled. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about dialogue, national conversation. Tinubu is not against national conversation. I don’t think he is. I don’t think even the Jonathan men are against national conversation. It is we the people who will dictate where and how we are going to live.

Did the meeting also discuss how the country has progressively been moving in reverse?

Yes, we did. The incessant killings and the general insecurity, which has resulting in the killing of people from different parts of the country and of all the denominations and religious groups, are worrisome. We talked about corruption. If you read the communiqué from the meeting, this was captured. Corruption has become cancerous. I don’t think it is the kind of thing anybody, whether the person is a politician or religious man would want to bequeathe to the next generation. It is worrisome. The unemployment in the country is worrisome. Looting of the treasury is worrisome. We discussed all these things. We also discussed issues concerning the National Youth Service Corps, the wanton killing of our children in certain parts of the country.

Were you leaders encouraged to discuss the looting and state of corruption because of claims in some quarters that corruption is more entrenched now than in previous administrations?

We are talking about it because it is a reality and it is an uncomfortable reality. You can’t dispute this. There is an Igbo proverb that says that ‘an elder does not stay in the house and allow the goat to eat everything in the barn.’ It is abominable to do that. We can’t keep quiet in the presence of evil.

Why are you leaders from the South East focusing attention on the unity of the South when your zone is not speaking with one voice?

We are not pretending; we are talking about unity, not uniformity. The two are different. People must have their views. If the majority of the people come together and say that this is the way things should be, for me, it is ok. If we have 90 per cent of the Igbo agreeing on one side of the thing; we have achieved reasonable unity. We are not saying that there are no problems of unity in the country; it is everywhere. It exists among the Yoruba, South South, and Igbo, etc. The Igbo are not the only people who have problem in their region. There is the issue of one Aziza. He is an Urhobo man, having meetings with the Arewa group. That does not show unity in the South South. You talked of Tinubu and the rest not being present in our meeting in Enugu; that does not also show unity. There is no place in the world where the type of unity you are talking about exists. Once a majority of people who think alike meet they can achieve a set goal for the benefit of their society. And that is exactly what we are doing.

Do you agree with people who argue that the South East is in its worst state since after the civil war?

Yes, I agree because the Federal Government hasn’t lived up to the promise made after the war: that is ‘No Victor, No Vanquished.’ We are being treated like people who were conquered. That is why most of the institutions in the South East are in deplorable state that they are today. The roads are not built properly. When they are given out, they are given to contractors who are not of standard. Tell me any road in the South East that has been handled by a company, like Julius Berger?

We do not have enough presence in the government. I know the kind of presence we had in the government in 1979 when, Ekwueme, Zik and the rest of us were there. We never had it so good, as in the Second Republic when Shagari was there. There was a zeal for everybody to come together. That zeal has waned; it has been put down. It is like that because there are individuals, hard liners who feel that the South East must be taught a lesson.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo recently came out to counter this claim of neglect. He gave a figure of the number of South East indigenes that were appointed to key positions. How do you place your claims vis-à-vis that of that of the former President?

That is Obasanjo’s view; it should not be taken as a gospel truth.

If it should not be taken as a gospel truth, why didn’t the leaders from the zone counter his claim when he made it?

Several leaders have countered many things that Obasanjo said. That people from the zone were appointed ministers is a constitutional right. The constitution says that a minister should be appointed from every state of the federation. So, that is a constitutional issue; he was not doing any favour to the South East. We have only five states when others have six and seven. For several years, we had only two states – Imo and Anambra. Before that, for several years we had only one state, the East Central State led by Ukpabi Asika, when others, including the minorities, had one, two, three states. They had more states than the Igbo. If that is not discrimination, what again is discrimination? It is an injustice. No country progresses based on injustice. What the Igbo are asking for is not favour; we asking for social justice. We can work hard; we are asking for an environment where every person’s labour is adequately remunerated, rewarded. We are asking for where in this market we can buy as much as we want to. Why is it that Obasanjo, for instance, refused to build second Niger Bridge? Nobody including himself has answered that question.

So far would you say this government is different from that of Obasanjo, in terms of addressing some of these neglects you talked about or the two are the same?

You must realise that the problem the Igbo have are systemic; they are built in the system. So, it is not something that one person can come and change overnight. The people who want to do serious recognition of the Igbo problem would have to change a number of things, including the creation of state, changing how this country is ruled, the kind of constitution that we have. These are very important. If we continue to produce only 15 members of the National Assembly, have fewer local governments than other parts of the country, how can there be equalization, where is the justice and equity there?

Until I became minister of education in 1979, there was only one university in the whole of the South East. And this is a zone that has been producing the highest number of candidates looking for university admission. And the government that handed over to us had prescribed that no new university should be built. I had to go to President Shagari, with a new proposal on how to set up a new mission-oriented universities, university of science and technology, and allow the states that can to have their own universities. It never happened until 1979. That is why we have a multiplicity of private universities today. This was our vision, our initiative, because we wanted a change. Some if these things that have been embedded in the institutions have to be changed. And it requires political will to do so.

Why do you think that successive administrations have worked against the interest of the Igbo?

I don’t know; those who ran those government are the people who can tell us why. They should tell us why. They should tell us why an Igbo man has never been appointed Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. They should tell us why we should have only five states when others have six and seven. Does that make sense? Does that show justice? Look at our population.

What do you make of claims in some circles that this administration is incompetent?

These are individual perceptions. There must be yardstick to measure government and until these yardsticks are properly perceived and received every other judgment is personal and subjective.

As someone who served a military regime, based on personal experience, do you agree with people that military was the main cause of Nigeria’s problem?

Again, it is a matter of perception. Those who believe in democracy would always tell you that democracy is the best form of government known so far. It does not mean that democracy hasn’t got its own pitfall, as we are now perceiving. But whatever you say, I don’t think the military has any right to get into governance. Though if you go to history, people like Napolean Bonapat, who ruled France for many years and who conquered many parts of the country left so many legacies that civilians borrowed from. People are still talking about Bonapat till today because he was a great military ruler. Hitler was a great military ruler even though he was eventually conquered. Despite all this, I believe that the role of the military is to defend the country. If the military had not intervened, though when they intervened they believed they were doing the right thing, maybe this country would have overcome some of its administrative pitfalls and moved ahead.

At what point did you start feeling this way? Was it after you served the military?

I had served in a civilian government. I was minister of education in the Shagari cabinet. I served as a minister long before Abacha’s government, which was in 1995. So, I have always had that impression that the best military government may not be as good as the worst civilian government. But I also had a rethink about that because of some reasons. Our people say that when a woman marries two husbands, she will know which one is better.

Do you regret accepting to serve in Abacha’s government?

I haven’t said so. I served in that government because of the necessity to do so.

What was the necessity?

First of all, we didn’t have any choice; it was a military era. Secondly, you needed humanists to humanise that government. The government needed people who would tell them how things should be done. And there were many other compelling reasons on why we had to serve. If we hadn’t served you could imagine what would have been the result. We made our inputs that stopped a descent to anarchy.

Abacha has so much been demonized. Was his government that bad?

When you serve in a government, you are assigned a portfolio. If you are serious minded and if you are not just interested in the position but in the work involved in the position, you may not be bothered; you may not have time to poke nose in what happens in other ministries. You are only after the assignment given to you. That was what I did when I was in the ministry of health. I minded my portfolio. I did what I was asked to do.

The issue whether people are demonizing Abacha or not, to me, is an after fact. I also know that there are people who are praising Abacha, who believed that Abacha did the correct thing. I remember the former Economic Adviser, Prof. Aluko, when he was alive. He never stopped praising Abacha for his economic policies. How much was Naira exchanging to a dollar that time? It was N80 to a dollar. How much is it today? That was how strong our Naira was then. Today, what is happening to our economy? So, these things are relative.

Are you saying that Abacha was a better economic manager than Jonathan?

I haven’t said so. I am just giving you indices. I am telling you what happened; if you know that they didn’t happen tell me. Look at the two scenarios and make your conclusion. Aluko, when he was alive, said the economy was better under Abacha. Because Abacha was quarrelling with IMF and the rest of then, because he turned his back against the West, there was politics in assessment of his government.

Looking at the ministry of health today and your time, are you satisfied with some policies and decisions?

There are areas the people who are running the ministry have done well; there areas they have not done well. Take, for instance, the National Hospital. The hospital should be handed over to Mrs. Abacha so that what she conceived should be realised. It was supposed to be a tertiary reference hospital but it is not serving that purpose now. It is supposed to be for children and women; it is not serving that purpose now. Go look at the facilities there now. So, there, they have not done well.

We launched the National Health scheme. I revived it from where it was left after Prof Olukoye Ransome-Kuti had gone. I called a meeting of experts to look at it and we came out with two documents after a National Health Summit. It was the first ever held in the country and it was held under a military dictatorship. Abacha gave me a free hand, just as Shehu Shagari gave me a free hand in the education sector. That was why we made the tremendous impact we made in the education sector. We had 13 universities when I came in as minister of education; three of them were located within a radius of 200 kilometers, serving one section of the country. We needed equity in the education sector ,just as we needed equity in health. And we made a difference. We did not only re-establish the National Health Scheme and set up bodies that manage it, we made tremendous impact in other areas. I am happy that the scheme is still being managed. It was Abacha that relaunched the programme, not a civilian government. It was a military government that said there should not be additional universities, but Shagari government said there should be more universities. He gave franchise to states and individuals to do so. So, each administration, whether military or civilian, has something to remember it for.

Another thing we achieved in the health sector was industrial harmony. We didn’t have any problem with staff, who worked for us. We also tried to introduce equity and that is why we built psychiatric hospitals all over the country. We took over hospitals from states and made them tertiary hospitals. For instance, the Federal Medical Centre in Owerri used to be a General Hospital. We did same in Abeokuta and other states. There was balancing.

There were also some allegations against you. You were accused of highhandedness and non-transparency in the handling of finances of your ministry. Why has it been difficult for you to counter these allegations?

No, no nobody could have said finance. I worked without money. Remember I was not in-charge of the finance of the ministry. The permanent secretaries and the DGs were the financial accounting officers of ministries and agencies. If you know your story, you will know what happened to the DG in my ministry. He was disgraced out of office. It was not just because of me. When he went to another ministry, the same thing he was doing in my ministry was what he was doing in the Ministry of Defence where he went to. He didn’t last six months there.

There were no directors from certain parts of the country when I came in, but I made sure that there was an equity. Those who weren’t appointed directors were not happy. Those who wanted to supercede, but because I said no to this they were not happy. I told them that it was against the civil service law to become a director over somebody who was there before you and who is qualified to be a director simply because you came from a certain parts of the country. If that is highhandedness I accept that. We are talking about discipline.

God bless Abacha

Good bless the late General

I agree! HE IS A MUSLIM AND A NORTHERNER!
He comes from such DISTINCTIVE BREED THAT WOULD MOS-DEF LEYOO KNOW IF AND WHEN THEY ARE GONNA KILL YA AZZZZE. . . . AND FOR GOOD REASON TOO!

No OTOKOTO SOUTHERN, CHRISLAMIC BUUULL-SHYTTING, PISSING OR MESSSSSSSING!!!

May the good ALLA-H treasure his precious soul for ever!!! AMEN!!!

When commeth another?

I was too young and ignorant of his ICONOBLASTIC RELEVANCE THEN!

I am a believer now AND FOREVER!!!! AMEN!!!

^ Sorry but your post makes no logical sense to me.

What point are you trying to make?

GenBuhari: ^ Sorry but your post makes no logical sense to me.

What point are you trying to make?

Fool,you are to ignorant people like you are the reason why nigeria is moving backwards.

[size=18pt]Nura Ismail Garba: Why we must remember Abacha[/size]

Time moves swiftly which is why, perhaps, few Nigerians may remember that June 8, this year, marks the 15th anniversary of General Sani Abacha’s death in 1998. What matters, however, is not how long a leader lived or how long he served his country. The late head of state is being remembered on the account of his achievements within a relatively short space of time. General Abacha had about $10 billion in foreign reserve, but what he achieved in five years with limited resources left even his harshest and unforgiving enemies shamelessly disarmed by his positive record of performance.

His enemies would not want us to recall his achievements because it could diminish their ego and highlight their incompetence and hypocrisy. Abacha was different because his policies had more direct impact on basic issues affecting ordinary Nigerians. For example, he initiated the current railways modernization and rehabilitation projects, which could have been completed long ago if former President Olusegun Obasanjo hadn’t stopped the projects to spite Abacha’s memory or diminish his positive legacies.

Obasanjo’s interference with the progress of the railway projects for malicious reasons largely explains why the rehabilitation of our railway system is still sluggish. No wise leader should play petty politics with the relevant needs of the people. The railway system is one of the oldest and cheapest modes of transportation. It is the ordinary man’s means of transportation. It was for this reason Abacha gave priority to railways. Unfortunately, a country where leaders let private grudges interfere with the larger public interest must always pay a price for such whimsical leadership mindsets.

The railway projects started by Abacha would have covered more states today, but for Obasanjo’s decision to halt them on grounds that they were costly. Strangely, however, towards the end of his tenure in 2007, the same Obasanjo re-awarded the railway projects at a much more staggering cost to Nigeria. Should leaders sacrifice public interest simply because they had grudges against those before them? Sadly, such is the reality of our country; leaders throw away the baby with the bath water.

Such myopic mindset impedes our progress. By bringing in Chinese to revive the moribund railways system in Nigeria, Abacha had the interest of ordinary Nigerians at heart. Trains are the darlings of the ordinary people. Therefore, any leader that paid attention to such important sector deserves praise. Great achievements outlive those that initiated them. No fair-minded Nigerian can forget Abacha’s record in a hurry. We should not let Abacha’s malicious enemies define the late military ruler and set the tone of how we debate his positive record.

A frequent allegation is that Abacha was a dictator, but did he have any problem with ordinary Nigerians? Despite his perceived dictatorship, his records still outshine those of his successors. As far as ordinary Nigerians are concerned, substance is more important than form. The late Chinese Premier, Mr. Deng Xiaoping, stated that “it doesn’t matter whether the cat is black or white, provided it catches mice.”

Abacha’s petroleum subsidy policy was more credible in the eyes of Nigerians than similar policies under administrations after him. The Abacha administration increased petrol price to only N20 per litre. He then established the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) to manage the proceeds of the subsidy withdrawal. His appointment of General Muhammadu Buhari as chairman of the Fund demonstrated clearly that Abacha placed higher national interest above petty considerations. PTF didn’t disappoint Nigerians as the nation witnessed remarkably improvement in infrastructure and social services – hospitals that were mere consulting clinics were restored to functional status, ordinary Nigerians had access to safe and affordable drugs; public roads and schools were rehabilitated within few months of PTF intervention.

Let us not forget that the Obasanjo administration had increased petroleum price to N70 per litre. Yet, Nigerians found no real evidence to attribute the same success rate the PTF had achieved to Obasanjo’s subsidy management policy. The failure of the former Obasanjo administration to perform so well with the proceeds of subsidy withdrawal was the beginning of the subsequent public hostility to the policy.

Unlike Abacha’s PTF, independently managed by credible Nigerians, other subsidy withdrawal policies that came after his administration ended up enriching few members of the elite at the expense of the ordinary people who were supposed to be the beneficiaries.

Admittedly, Abacha had his limitations just as any other human being, but that shouldn’t be an excuse for anybody to use his shortcomings to obliterate his achievements. His record of achievements far outweighs his shortcomings. His enemies had more resources at their disposal, but their performance was dwarfed by Abacha’s. Loath or love him, there is no denying the fact that within the five years he was destined to rule, Abacha had made such positive impact that even his ardent critics cannot diminish or destroy.

- This Best Outside Opinion was written by Nura Ismail Garba

There seem to be a lot of mentally ill fucktards like GenBuhari rooming the internet:

http://nodisinfo.com/Home/nairobi-mall-massacre-zionist-hoax/

Welcome back to the thread
Long time no hear

[img]http://.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GENERAL-SANI-ABACHA-MARCHING-CEREMONY_compressed.jpg[/img]